Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 17, 2012 6:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

The Slate piece also points to a peer-reviewed journal, by the way. The kind of blanket dismissal that you've made here, apparently without even glancing at either of the sources that I cited, really doesn't help your argument much.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Hashjihad Date: Dec 17, 2012 7:19pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Typical, I ask for facts and you seem to get angry. The funniest part about this is I agree with you and I read both articles. Skepticism is part of being a scientist, and of peer reviewed research. Bottom line I don't believe jack shit in pop science media. Fox news can as readily twist a science based study to suit their own brand of bullshit. I am all for stricter gun laws, fear of the unknown killer barging into your house killing your family reminds me of how the church uses fear of hell to indoctrinate people into their religion. Fear begets fear, which is the huge problem with the media. Which I believe has more to do with gun violence than guns laws. The average American could probably name more mass murderers than presidents.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 17, 2012 7:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Typical? Typical of what? I'm simply responding to your points, again with simple, easy-to-verify, facts. If that makes me "angry" then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

If you read both articles, then why did you ask me to "Post the Peer reviewed research" when I'd already done so?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Hashjihad Date: Dec 17, 2012 8:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Those are not peer reviewed. You have just proved that you haven't even glanced at the research. Normally you must subscribe or pay money to read actual studies, but perhaps you knew of a place I could ready it for free, or you are some sort of professor with access to those studies. Again those three paragraph articles reference studies, just like the wall street journal does, but would ever believe the crap coming from them? No. This study could be total baloney, but the only way to really tell would be to read how they went about the study. Not just believe what some writer at Slate has to say about it. Perhaps you weren't angry and perhaps I wanted to confirm my original supposition. And again I think mass media has much more to with violence overall, than simply gun laws. Which is the premise for Bowling for Columbine. Compare Canadian and American media. Or Al-Jazeera and American media. Sensationalist journalism which even some well known science based journals are not immune to.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 17, 2012 8:32pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

The journals discussed in those articles are indeed peer-reviewed. I'm not trying to argue that Slate and Science Daily are medical journals.

And I more than glanced at the studies. I actually read them. Access is free here.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058_1

Someone else also provided a link above. You've heard of Google?

The study mentioned in Slate is also just a mouse-click away from the article. In case that's too challenging for you to find on your own, here's the link:

http://jeffsachs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Australia-Gun-Law-Reforms.pdf

Either way, in the future you might try adding something substantive to the discussion instead of these blind attacks.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Hashjihad Date: Dec 17, 2012 8:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

But anyways I don't think changing gun laws will do very much. Some basic way in how we sensationalize news and mass murders like what currently is happening in the media is why these things keep happening. Did you see the slashing in China that killed 20? Did you read my idea about the RFID chip? We literally must go that far if a direct law involving guns is to do very much. It only takes one person and one gun. Perhaps makes bullets outrageously expensive?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Dec 18, 2012 7:05am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

Yes, and in China, nobody died. The type of weapons available to these psychos is hugely important. Lanza would have killed far fewer people if he did not have access to the AR-15 and the big clips in the first place. Banning the sale and possession of those things alone might have cut the death toll in half, if not more.

An RFID chip seems like a pretty extreme idea that would also do nothing to stop the legal owners of these weapons from carrying out a massacre. Bottom line is, countries with very strict gun laws almost never have mass shootings of this kind.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Hashjihad Date: Dec 17, 2012 8:42pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: in the Home Provide Greater Health Risk Than Benefit

I wrote a lot actually. Look again.

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)